New English rugby coach wrong choice, says Cohen

I think Johnson made quite a few mistakes along the way - hardly surprising given how inexperienced he was - but was improving as a manager. He did go back into his shell for the Cup, though, and it didn't pay off for him. I'm not sure if he would have been able to fashion a World Cup winng side by 2015 but now we'll never know. Unfortunately, Johnson was chosen primarily because he was regarded by the RFU as a good figurehead for the national team after the Robinson and Ashton eras. The PR backlash, and fan disappointment at the early Cup exit, turned those assets into liabilities. Who knows whether the RFU would have stuck by him but he was evidently unhappy at the way the discussions were heading and took the choice out of their hands. I agree that any failures by Mallet would have have brought causes of "told you so". That's bound to have been a factor given how much stock the RFU seems to put on goodwill, and the risk of losing it. I'd like to think they will assess Lancaster's performance by criteria other than the fickle favour of press and supporters but their record isn't great in that respect.

Agree with that, Colin. England were very, very poor in the first two games, just as poor as they were against the 3N sides when we had all those injuries (Monyetat 15, Duncan Bell at 3 etc) and yet Lancaster got a free ride and Johnson was villified. I think some of the selections in the first two games were poor, but ultimately we won and now here Lancaster is. I could never have seen Johnson sitting there on the Rugby Club listening to the twaddle coming out of Morris and Barnes. It really is quite media driven. A lot is also being made of Lancaster talking to the clubs, but a lot was made of Johnson talking to the clubs post-Ashton. It's pretty wearisome tbh. Likewise the young sides Johnson selected in his first few games, and the young sides selected by Lancaster. It's like Johnson Mark II. I wonder if Lancaster would have been given the same honeymoon period had England been thrashed by the 3N sides in his first few games? I would have really liked to have seen Kirwan given a shout. Hopefully there is still room for Wayne Smith, although don't know where if Farrell gets a job.

"When Lancaster makes mistakes along the way – and he’s bound to – it’s only natural that people will wonder in the back of their minds whether Mallett would have avoided making them." Similarly, if Mallet had been appointed against the wishes of the majority then the same would surely happen? To be fair, it was quite a difficult decision for the RFU but they've probably made the one which makes the most sense. As anything, going into a situation like this with a certain bias clouds someones judgement and will often condemn their position before they've even started, aka Johnson. With the exception of the World Cup period, I maintain Johnson did a good job and, although a lot of new caps were introduced, the core of the side that played in the recent Six Nations was introduced by Johnson. Everyone's talking about the front-row and the youth of it. Who gave them their first caps? But because he wasn't the media or public's choice, there was no chance he would get them on his side.

I must admit, I'm not much swayed by the opinions of the players either. You don't want the team being pals with the manager, you want them respectful, and slightly fearful for their places if they let him down. I'm a little wary of the implication that toys would have been out of the pram if Lancaster hadn't been appointed. It's going to be an odd situation for Lancaster. The majority of the press - except Barnes and Jones who already think the RFU have made a mistake - are obliged, for a time, to give him a relatively easy ride because they backed him. However, with it being so public that Mallett was an alternative candidate, he's always going to cast a long shadow. When Lancaster makes mistakes along the way - and he's bound to - it's only natural that people will wonder in the back of their minds whether Mallett would have avoided making them. By all accounts, the RFU were swayed by the way Lancaster's brief stewardship turned the England team from a walking PR disaster into a squad which connected again with fans and sponsors. Of course, that could just as easily become his Achilles heel. In his presentation he apparently also identified all the England players he saw challenging for each position in the run-up to the next Cup. The RFU liked that depth of knowlege of the potential talent. One criticism of Mallet's tenure at Italy is that he never really knew where to look in Italy for new blood and that may have played a part in their thinking.

in 2007 players like Lewsey, Shaw, Catt, Robinson and Barkley said Ashton was totally out of his depth. Maybe as a backs coach, but not the head slot.

I kind of agree, but it's hard to be critical when the side averages something like 18 caps per man. Scotland took most teams close, and the Italy game was played out in ridiculous conditions. A last minute rip off of Lawes doesn't mean England didn't play very well, and England dominated France and Ireland physically. You can't expect a team like that go out and rip the world apart. I was disappointed with some of the selections - thought they were unbalanced, but overall there's positive things to build on. I'm not sure he's the right man, but most of the things you say could be levelled at all the other 6N sides. Just seems like negativity for the sake of it because it's England.

I don't put much currency on current players like Cipriani and Corbisiero giving Lancaster the thumbs up - talk about brown-nosing the new coach.

I thought they would of gone for Mallett. Maybe it was the fact that it is a home world cup, they only want an Englishman . That will bite them at the crunch. I don't know if Lancaster is the man to lead England when the pressure is really on . Finals stages of World Cup. Martin Johnson was exposed massively when it counted and I fear the same fate for Lancaster. In Lancaster's defence though he is much better than Johnson , and has had some previous head coach work. I don't know much about his resume but he was the Head coach of England Saxon's. I still would of looked at Brian Ashton. The England players who played under him all of them said he was a great coach the best ever , no England players were scathing of brian ashton they all said he was great. I would of looked at him or Andy Robinson again but he is under contract too scotland. he ran a good campaign for the Scot's at the world cup and they were very unlucky at the world cup the scot's.

good call. i look froward to seeing the english beat the boks 2-1.

I think Lancaster got the Job because he is the only one who is prepared to be bossed around by the English Rugby Board, rather than a coach that will introduce new philosophy and approach to move England to a better level. Now the Aussies and wales have good chances of winning the RWC2015....... because the home game alone won't cut it for England..........

Ben should have spent more time trying to play at least one decent game post 2003....Prior to the RWC he was a gun.

It doesn't matter who was chosen , you are never going to please everyone. Bottom line, Lancaster deserved to be appointed and good luck to him. Personally, i think he will do well.

I don't think Ben Cohen should be talking about wrong choices... ... His ''body suit' should attest to that.

I think England's so called good performances in the 6 Nations was overstated. I thought they were mediocre at best and benefited from just being higher than France in those stakes. - The attack was lateral and counter attack was poor (apart from the France game). Ashton, Strettle and Sharples were non entities. Foden only really fronted up against the French. Watched Foden and Ashton play for Northampton on the weekend and they were back to their best. - Made too many soft errors (particularly Foden coughing up two tries against Italy, Croft butchering an easy try opportunity against Ireland and Lawes having the ball ripped off him by the Welsh replacement winger) - Were ordinary against Italy and Scotland and lucky to win both matches - The backrow wasn't imposing at the breakdown. Sure Morgan made some metres with ball in hand but teams will work him out. - Only got on top of the Irish due to the scrum and mistakes. They didn't look like scoring a try in the first half and the backrow was matched at the breakdown. With the scrum disintegrating Ireland deteriorated and lost interest in the forwards.